Whyte of the long knives

The news that Alastair Johnston and Paul Murray have been removed from the Rangers’ board, swiftly followed by reports that Martin Bain and Donald McIntyre have been suspended pending an inquiry into financial irregularities, is somehow still stunning despite its predictability.  What makes these events remarkable is the lack of decorum.  Whyte was always going to form his own board.  In fact, I have been surprised that he has waited this long.  (Some have suggested some legal i-dotting and t-crossing was required before Whyte could act).  However, following most takeovers, the changing of the guard usually proceeds without much of a fuss or fanfare.  The rules for how to remove board members varies from company to company, but the mechanics for a new owner to place his own directors on the board should be straightforward.  When you own 85% of the company, you can have the directors of your choice.  (Dave King’s board seat may be guaranteed by previous contracts related to his original investment).  It is the style of this “night of the long knives” that marks a stunning departure for Rangers (or at least a leap back to pre-David Murray times).

This blog has nodded and winked at the extent of wrong-doing by prominent members of the Rangers board.  I know for a fact that the actions of some board members would shock even those who has been following the financial fate of Rangers FC closely.  At some point this was always going to explode.   However, there are more questions than answers about Whyte’s motivations in acting now and in this manner.

Has Whyte had a sudden epiphany after getting access to the ‘real’ behind the scenes information? Contrary to popular myth ‘due diligence’ does not guarantee that a potential buyer gets access to all of the information he requests.  The seller always has the right to simply withhold any data of his choice.  The only obligation of the seller is to not tell outright lies about the prospects for the firm.

Alternatively, is this just a stage-managed event to portray the previous board as the villains who will be responsible for any failure to deliver on promises leaked to the media during the long takeover process?

Are Martin Bain and Donald McIntyre under investigation for EBT-related activities or is this a separate issue altogether?  I can say that the EBT-related activities of board members was not some rogue action secretly executed by one or two individuals.  To a fault, board members over-communicated what they were doing.  If today’s news is EBT-related, then I would be ready to declare these dramatic moves as a smokescreen to distract from other actions.  Every Rangers FC board member since 2001 will have been aware of the EBT.  I know of five who definitely had detailed involvement in its operation.  Two of these directors remain on the board.

We cannot ignore the fact that as executive directors, Bain and McIntyre will be on significant salaries and will likely have some job security through multi-year contracts.  Such contracts can only be terminated for ’cause’.  Such cause has to be very serious for terminations to be upheld, but if a case can be made that shows the executive to be untrustworthy, the terminations will stick.  This could all just simply be a pretext to fire two highly paid people without having to pay them for the remainder of their contracts.

The refusal of Alastair Johnston and Paul Murray to resign is a further sign of their deep misgivings about the new Rangers ownership.  That Johnston broke with the standard cover story about ‘confidence’ over the tax case to express concerns that Whyte had shown no proof of having the funds to pay such a bill would have made his removal inevitable.  That Paul Murray broke ranks to try to organise an alternative financing program to thwart Whyte’s advances will also have marked his cards.  However, this is just standard corporate politics and normally defeated directors in a hostile takeover fall on their swords. This is inevitable when 85% of the shares are held by one shareholder.  That both Johnston and Murray have tried to make as big of a splash on their departures as possible can be interpreted as a warning.  I am bound by a promise of confidentiality to a source of information, but I know that Johnston and Murray would have solid reasons (not tax case related) to want to send a warning to the Rangers support at-large.

It will be interesting to see how willing and/or able these four directors will be to speak to the media (old and new).  Even if gag-agreements are in place leaks happen in the normal course of events.  The challenge will be for the Scottish media to publish their comments.  Most Scottish media outlets will want to continue dining on the easy meals of succulent lamb fed from Ibrox.  Journalists whose salaries depend on getting their quota of transfer exclusives and interviews with players will fear retribution for printing anything not approved by the new politburo.  However, I suspect that Hay McKerron will be busier than they ever imagined in the coming weeks.

About rangerstaxcase
I have information on Rangers' tax case, and I will use this blog to provide the details of what Rangers FC have done, why it was illegal, and what the implications are for one of the largest football clubs in Britain.

240 Responses to Whyte of the long knives

  1. Gary says:

    You must appoint a PLUS corporate adviser if you want to float your company on the PLUS market.


    Whats your view RTC?

  2. tomtom says:

    If Minty at the height of his powers couldn’t get the fans to part with their cash (in far easier economic times) what chance does Whyte have.

  3. tomtom says:

    Adam, you’ve answered your own question.

    Why would the “billionaire owner of RFC” need to raise cash from the fans? What intrigues me, and no doubt many others, is why not one journalist has questioned this move. Whyte entered the scene as the cash rich saviour of the day. Slowly it’s becoming clear that he and his team do not have the money (if indeed they have any money) that they stated. Alastair Johnson has confirmed this (in all but words) but still our press do not print any searching articles. Michael Knighton tried it years ago with Man Utd but fell on his face, Whyte is heading in the same direction but still no serious criticism is forthcoming, other than on places like this blog. As you can tell by the quality of the posts on here the vast majority of us are reasonable, educated and knowledgeable people. We do not come on with rantings and ravings ( I personally abhor the use of the word hun but that is for RTC to decide on it’s inclusion) but put our points in a reasoned and rational manner – some of us (myself included) may be speculating in the wrong direction but we can’t all be wrong.

    So to all you men (and women) out there who are being paid to be journalists, start earning your money and report what is really happening to Rangers. You never know you might actually feel good about it.

  4. Adam says:

    Not that im saying Whyte would be the man to get the fans to part with the cash, but you cannot possibly compare the previous share issue. All fans knew the share issue was just to get Murray out of a hole and took the stance of, “you created the mess, so you fix it”

  5. Boab says:

    That basically means that the fans thought David Murray should invest another £50m in Rangers to get the club out of the financial mire. They thought that he was responsible and that he should pay for the mess. Fair do’s.

    Do you really think that, if there is a further share issue, the fans will think that it is their mess to clear up. I suspect that they will think that, now Whyte has come in, part of his job is to put the money in to clear everything up. Bearing in mind that most of the potential small shareholders are probably season ticket holders or regular attenders. They probably think they already put enough into the club as it is. Particularly during such hard economic times.

    It is only my opinion, based on history, but I do not think a share issue would be a success if it relied on large numbers of small investors. A few wealthy businessmen, or institutions might just work, but not trying to sell it to the rank and file supporters. Just so we are clear, I think the same would be true for any other club just now.

  6. Adam says:

    I agree that the fans will think its Whytes duty to clear everything up. If he does as he says he is going to do though, and puts the club into a “debt free” state(I wont hold my breath) then asked the fans to buy shares in order to increase transfer fees and wages, then i think thats when you would get buy in.

    I agree though that the few wealthy businessmen would be the best way to go, though your rank and file would support such a scheme to a lesser degree.

  7. tomtom says:

    Adam, am I missing something here. Whyte rode into town and claimed that he would rid Rangers of their debt and provide £25m for transfers. Now he is appointing advisors who specialise in flotations but you still don’t see any problems with this. Any share issue would dilute his shareholding (unless he creates a different class of share ie: RFC2).

    Why are Rangers fans not screaming from the rooftops about being duped. Even if Whyte is acting honourably he is still not carrying out his promise. Do you honestly believe that if Whyte had said 3 months ago “I’m going to buy the club but at the end of the day I want you guys to pay for it” the fans would have went along with it. Not a chance in hell.

    At least Fergus told the truth from day one.

  8. Adam says:

    Yeah you are CLEARLY missing all my replies tomtom and reading what you want to read. Do me a favour and read every one of my posts on this and a few other blogs, then come back and tell me if you still think I DONT SEE A PROBLEM WITH WHYTE.

    Jeez Louise. :-)

    Is it just me or could i have not put my nervousness any more clearer on here. lol

  9. Justinian says:

    I do not have any deeply formed views concerning the tenure of the departed Chairman Johnston. Latterly he appeared to be sounding a warning trumpet. It remains to be seen as to the correctness of that .

    In today’s (Wed) Scotsman…. there appears a piece which can only be described as character assassination of the man. I doubt that I have a set eyes upon a more vindictive or vicious piece of so-called ‘journalism’. I have never seen a ‘public figure’ in Scotland being set about in this way. A personal attack – viciousness incarnate.

    The scribbler? Mr English.

    With his recent ‘stance’ on this whole affair there is not the slightest doubt as to who is manipulating this puppet.

    English should be extremely careful here. He has undoubtedly boxed himself into a corner and will forever be remembered as ‘having supped with the Devil’ when it all goes off.

    Surprised that his ‘effort’ got past the various Editors at the Scotsman.

  10. Cost cuts at newspapers today means that “branded” writers’ work will barely be reviewed before publication.

    English’s loyalty to his now departed king goes beyond playing the game. His stuff reads as if he is either carrying a romantic torch for Murray or has simply been paid. Traynor’s infatuation with Murray is the same. It appears to go beyond mere respect for the man.

  11. andy Fitzpatrick says:

    Showing your age RTC, hehe. I loved little calimero.

  12. Jean says:

    TAKEN FROM RM…………………………………………………………….

    hello chaps sorry not had a chance to get on just fininshed.

    what i meant at lunch time regarding bain was that him being being was just the start of it,the news wasnt about him.

    since the takeover was completed you wouldnt believe the amount of paper work we have had to shift threw,its unbelieveable just how much paper work has to be done.

    while going through the paper work there was some irregular documents found regarding martin bain,there for he had to be suspended until we get to the bottom of it,not just bain may i add.

    i can confirm that AJ was paid for being chairman but not going into details as to how he was paid but it wasnt a yearly salary!it wasnt much but still got paid.

    now onto the tax case,i am 100% confident that we will win the case which is in the final stages and looking very promising,this was meant to be announced on thursday but as off 5pm today there was talk off delaying this statement due to whats happened over the last 24hrs,theres always a stumbling block when it comes to rangers if its not the takeover its now the tax case.but its nothing major and will be sorted over the next few days.

    finally the player i mentioned,we were and still are in talks with him and his agent and looked as though could have been completed tomorrow but yet again a stumbling block arises,his club have upped there price to near double what was first mentioned.

    i honestly cant name names but what i will say hes scottish and playing abroad,make of that what you want!

    Obviously the Whyte PR machine at work here ;o)

  13. Adam says:

    Or obviously an idiot non Rangers supporter, who cant spell properly, never mind using correct punctuation, at the wind up. ;-)

  14. Chris says:

    Adam, since I can’t (for reasons unknown) resopnd to your earlier comment – the “you fix it” one – I’ll respond to that here if you don’t mind.

    I’ve always found the after-the-fact comments regarding the share issue Murray underwrote as a source of mirth from Rangers fans. They all state hand on heart NOW that it was a case of “Murray made the mess, he can fix it” and nobody was going to ‘line his pockets’

    Why can’t these same fans see it was the club in debt, not Murray, and the club which would’ve benefitted? After all, it was the club who paid the money that got them into debt (welcomed by the fans as long as they thought it was coming out of Murray’s pocket, which they undoubtedly did…once they realised Rangers itself was going deeper into debt with each pund spent they changed their tune a bit, which is both nhilarious and hypocritical in the extreme – why on earth would anyone want to spend their own money when they could spend the business’ money?)

    I suspect far far closer to the truth is Rangers fans just weren’t interested in owning Rangers. This isn’t a dig at you or the rest of them by the way, just how I thought then and think now.

  15. Jean says:

    Yeah that’s a possibility lol. So much misinformation out there it’s hard to gauge where it’s coming from but this sort of thing wont do CW any harm ;o)

  16. Adam says:

    Chris – I disagree with you. Back then, Murray was flashing his wealth and cash. Buying Property after property and was “seen as” one of the wealthiest men in Scotland. The Rangers fans, me included, knew he was underwriting the debt so why should i blow £1000 on shares, when i know that:

    a) the reality of shares in a football club is that they are worthless.
    b) If i wanted a small heart share, i could get a few for a tenner.
    c) The wealthiest man in Scotland who created this £70m debt has agreed to underwrite £55m of it irrespective of what i do.

  17. Ciarans Dad says:

    Jean, Thanks for this. I like a wee laugh in the morning
    Are we seriously meant to believe this is someone close to the Whyte camp.
    Going by the spelling and grammar looks like its our old pal Carlos Duval!!!
    And how would they be able to announce anything on the tax deal when the judges haven’t probably even met up again to form their opinion. Hunbelievable!!

  18. That is just hilarious!

    Leaving aside the idea that anyone who struggled to pass his Standard grade English exam is inside the inner sanctum of the Whyte camp (and is taking the time to “leak”), there is one fatal flaw: no one knows when the tax case decision will be released.

    FTT decisions are not produced on a schedule. They are published when complete and Rangers would not know the outcome until it is published. :-)

  19. Gary says:

    Jean remember Northampton Loyal saying he had spoke to Ellis personally!

  20. The Black Knight says:

    Daryll King in todays Herald writes:

    “Mr Whyte, who bought the club in a £52.5 million deal on May 6.”

    Hmmmmm Ok………?

    Lets look at this for a moment.

    Majority /controlling shares bought from David Murray for the paltry sum of £1
    Bank Debt (albeit nothing confirmed – proved/ disproved – that this has been cleared) was said to be in the region of £23M

    So I make that £23,000,001 (assuming the bank debt has been cleared)

    Unless of course this deal includes the alleged promise to invest £25M over 5 years. Which still only totals £48,000,001

    The FACT remains that the only thing anyone is assured about is that so far, legal fees aside, The Whyte Knight has only spent £1. The rest is at best conjecture.

  21. Ciarans Dad says:

    But does that include or exclude VAT??

    or as they have had that much help from the taxpayer (unwittingly) does that make them a charity and therefore vat exempt???????

  22. Number 7 says:

    Adam how can you be pretty sure the debt has been paid off- has there been a statement to this effect? I can recall that the debt was “assigned” to Wavetower, but nohing else.

  23. Adam says:

    Number 7 – I cannot imagine a situation whereby Lloyds allowed an £18m debt from a company, whom through their Parent Group, they held influence on, to move to a company with a)no track record and b) no control over.

  24. Adam says:

    Its all in the timing i guess. Statement just released by Craig Whyte:

    “I believe most Rangers supporters understand that, as a result of the takeover, the Club’s debt to the Lloyds Banking Group has been cleared and I have repeatedly stated to the Board my intentions to invest in the team”

  25. Boab says:

    Right, I think I see a cross wires here. Maybe I’m wrong, but if not;

    The debt Rangers had to Lloyds was not moved to Wavetower in such a way that Wavetower owed the money to Lloyds rather than Rangers owing it.

    The debt Rangers had to Lloyds was “bought” by Wavetower, so that Rangers then owed the money to Wavetower, rather than Lloyds. Wavetower paid Lloyds to buy the debt so no-one owes the money to Lloyds now. They are, as Adam said, out of the picture.

    So Wavetower were out of pocket by £18m (no-one knows where they got that) but were owed £18m by Rangers (most importantly this is secured against Rangers’ assets).

    It is my opinion that Wavetower (or their new name) will keep it that way, at least for a period, to secure their investment.

  26. Adam says:

    Im not sure you are right about the debt being secured against Rangers assets.

    Can you explain how this could come about Boab as obviously Wavetower would have had to raise that money prior to buying Rangers and would therefore not have the right to secure any assets over it. To use the assets Post Purchase, Wavetower would need the authority of Rangers FC plc Board, which I very much doubt would have been given, otherwise we would have heard about it.

    Can you give me any scenario at all whereby wavetower could have got this loan using say Ibrox as security.

  27. Boab says:

    They don’t need security to get the loan if it is from a “friendly investor”, rather than an institution. They could quite easily have gotten the £18m prior to spending the £1 used to buy the shares.

    These are clearly not normal transactions, and to consider it to be analogous to say a leveraged buy out is not reasonable in my view. So long as the “friendly investor”, who may well control the nominee who holds the one share in “Wavetower” is happy that his investment is secured then pas de problem.

    If you want to now argue that any outstanding debt is not secured against Rangers assets then fair do’s, I can live with that as a scenario.

  28. The Black Knight says:

    sorry just had to add this piece of enlightening information.

    Tom English in the Scotsman confirms that :

    “He (Whyte) needs to walk the walk and not just talk the talk,” said Johnston. Funny, that. Some would argue that, when Whyte gave Lloyds Banking Group £18m, that was a fairly clear signal that he wasn’t just a mouth almighty.

    We’ll all see soon enough how he meets his promise of significant investment in the transfer market, but the £18m has already changed hands. It’s done!”

    So Tom English has staked his ‘journalistic reputation’ that the money has been paid back to, ‘given’ to Lloyds!

    The second part is misleading though as it states the £18M has changed hands. The debt or the repayment?

  29. Adam says:

    Im pretty sure Lloyds have received the £18m taking them out of the picture. As to the question of “Do Rangers now owe The Rangers Group plc that £18m?” I think only Whyte and his team know the answer to that at this present stage.

  30. Boab says:

    Be honest Adam, if Rangers didn’t there would be a big “broohaha” about it. The new regime could not win the fans over any better than by proclaiming that they had paid off Lloyds themselves and written that debt off so that Rangers were now totally debt free.

    But we know that, financially that would make no sense just now. By keeping the debt and security they protect themselves (AND RANGERS) from potential creditors, as they hold security over the main assets.

    FFS Adam, if I was you I would be praying that Rangers owed the money to Whyte. Then if there is a tax bill Whyte gets to keep the assets, and ressurect the club after administration / liquidation is over. If Rangers are debt free then HMRC would have claim over everything and could wind the business up, liquidating everything and picking over the bones.

    From your point of view, as a fan, it is much better if Whyte holds the debt. Then if you win against HMRC he can write the debt off. You must agree that makes much more sense.

  31. Adam says:

    But Whyte has claimed we are “debt free” Boab. He said it on his first ever interview on Rangers TV.

  32. Ciarans Dad says:

    as discussed on here a few times it would make no sense for rangers to be debt free as he leaves himself open financially when they lose the tax case.

  33. Boab says:

    “Debt Free” could mean the only people Rangers owe money to are the people who own Rangers. If that makes sense.

    Like I have said, I think Rangers are in a better position if they owe the money to Whyte just now. Only if it is secured loans though. Which is exactly why Whyte bought the debt, rather than paying it off. Buying the debt brought the security with it.

  34. Adam says:

    Guys, im not sure if its at the point where we are debating the same points here.

    To make my position clear.

    1) I believe Lloyds have their £18m and are out the picture.
    2) I believe Wavetower(subsequently Rangers Group plc) have raised that £18m through a third party
    3) I believe that money has to be paid back.
    4) I believe that ultimately Whyte will fix it that Rangers FC plc pay it back, be it now, after the tax case, or at another defined point in our future.

    I am not one of the Gers fans who believes we are debt free and I am not one of the fans who thinks everything is fine and dandy now Lloyds have gone. And that is irrespective of the outcome of the tax case incidentally, as that will only worsen matters imo.

  35. kitalba says:

    Surely the the expectations of of a reasonable man has value in a court of law; especially if you multiply the expectations of a reasonable man by a nation’s populace minus prejudiced glory at any cost men. The huns would be comforted if they escaped a reasonable court having only been stripped of a few tainted Scottish titles. Precedence would lend itself to a good auld hung, drawn and quartering or few, but we all know that just won’t happen. Scottish Andrex courts are soft on the hun.

  36. SteveF says:

    So, who is in charge of the day-to-day running of Rangers at the moment? Who’s arranging friendlies, sorting player contracts, dealing with agents and arranging sponsorships?

    The departed AJ said earlier that Whyte has no idea how to run a football club.

  37. Ciarans Dad says:

    The latest from Blotto’ (Leggoland)



    ANYONE who was shocked by the blood letting in the Ibrox boardroom yesterday has not been paying attention.

    It was entirely predictable that Craig Whyte would take the action he did after the way things turned out when he moved into the last lap of his takeover.

    But with Martin Bain now suspended, Whyte must move quickly to put someone in place who knows the ins and outs of transfer deals and football regulations.

    Bain had inherited the task of dealing with much of the detail of this after Campbell Ogilvie left, and during the period it took for him to learn the ropes Rangers were vulnerable in these areas.

    They are vulnerable again, though, if what we have seen already of the way Whyte works is a guideline, it may not be long until there is someone in place to help new manager Ally McCoist set up deals for players and oversee arrangements for the Champions League qualifiers.

    Whyte in Glasgow yesterday to start the shake up at Ibrox, and events served to confirm what I predicted here as he arrived, that the new owner, named as Rangers managing director. will be a hands-on presence.

    And the way my revelation was quickly confirmed has whetted the appeitite of Rangers supporters for more info from inside Ibrox.

    I can feed that appetite by revealing that Whyte is extremely concerned about the way Rangers have sat back and allowed the club’s brand image to be tarnished.

    He wants that stopped, and intends to appoint an Alastair Campbell-style spin doctor to turn things around.

    Whyte is believed to be canvassing opinion on this appointment in business, media, legal and political circles in Scotland and England as he launches his nationwide search to unearth the best man for the job.

    What he wants is someone with impeccable political contacts in London, Edinburgh and Glasgow, plus an inside knowledge of who’s who and what’s what among the movers and shakers in Scottish football.

    Whyte has launched his hunt for someone who knows not merely the football writing fraternity. He wants a figure who carries a wider authority, and who also knows the buttons to press to keep newsdesks and political hacks, plus broadcasters, in line.

    For years Rangers fans have looked on in dismay as Celtic have been allowed to dictate the media agenda, with the shadowy figure of Alex Barr doing the Parkhead club’s bidding as a consultant.

    In fact, such was Barr’s power, that there was even a period during which he acted as a consultant for both Celtic AND the Scottish Football Association at the same time.

    This dreadful situation, and clear conflict of interest, only ended when I exposed it, and Barr’s contract with an embarrassed SFA was ended.

    That shocking fact reveals just how far behind Celtic, Rangers have fallen in the image stakes. In fact, Rangers have been lapped by Celtic during an era when Sir David Murray shackled the many people inside Ibrox who wanted to fight back.

    Now Whyte is planning a spirited fightback, and that means he now knows he will have to employ a full time big hitter of a spin doctor as an executive director and and him full powers.

    It is an appointment that is now near the top of Craig Whyte’s crowded agenda, as he launches his blueprint for Rangers’ future.

    posted by leggoland @ 01:17 17 Comments
    Is this how Whytey intends to let the masses know of his plans, through a hack that can’t get a job on a national.
    Also love the bit about Barr. They dont do irony do they, Peat, Dallas, Ogilvie, Broadfoot need i go on!!!!!!

  38. Jason says:

    Good Morning

    I am a Rangers fan and I was fully expecting heads to roll following this takeover.

    It is not something that is worrying me at this stage, however I would like to know what Craig Whyte plans for Rangers Football Club moving forward.

    He has stated he will invest in the team and i will give him time to act on that.

    I understand that Celtic fans are “hurting” after failing to win the title for the 3rd year running, but what is typed on this website is 100% speculative with NO solid factual information.

    Yes, Rangers are under new ownership. Yes, Rangers have a tax case to fight. Yes, Phillip Betts is a asset finance specialist – this does not mean we will lose the taxcase, nor does it mean that the new owners do not have the best interests of the club at heart.

    We can speculate that Rangers will lose the case, but even the author of this website cant provide a definative answer to that. Rangers were in a serious financial mess, of course we need someone like Betts to re-structure the clubs assets, it doesnt necessarily mean he has been brought on board to deal with any liability Rangers face from HMRC.

    I think that we should be patient and wait and see what happens rather than speculating on outcomes that are not decided yet. If anyone buys a business and the current board object to you, of course you will get rid of them asap.

    The one compelling argument for Whyte here is – why would he want to put his name in lights as the man who ruined Rangers?

    That is something that nobody in their right mind would want. He would be the most hated man in Scotland and I for one do not think he is that stupid.

    I am not getting excited or concerned with the recent changes, I will reserve judgement until after the summer when we will see if he has invested in the club. As a football fan that is the most important thing for me. I think all Celtic fans on here should look at your own clubs investment in the team, the net spend is very minimal by Celtic and that is going on 4 years since CL football, this must be making life tough for Celtic financially. Also you still couldnt get the better of an ageing, ravaged Rangers team, I would be asking serious questions of my own club if i was Celtic minded!

    We shall see how this story unfolds, I for one believe that Rangesr will invest, hopefully we can get some new players, clarify what the strategy is and continue to dominate the SPL for years to come..

  39. Good afternoon Jason.

    Just to take issue with a couple of points. There is a lot of speculation on this site regarding Whyte and his intentions, However, you are simply wrong if you think that this site is 100% speculation.

    Tax case? Time will tell if I am speculating about how Rangers implemented the tax scam.

    There are also a lot of issues at which I have to nod and wink. I have a decent amount of solid information about what directors received what and who did what, and about Whyte’s funding sources.

    Where I am speculating, it is obvious and usually declared.
    Where I am indicating that I have knowledge it is stated.
    Of course, when I am nodding and winking, you just have to draw your own conclusions.

    Let’s look at events since this blog started.
    Alastair Johnston has confirmed that the tax bill amounts would be unpayable (at least by Rangers on its own).
    Despite having been a sceptic on the takeover originally (I still do not understand what Whyte’s angle is because it does not make sense financially), I did receive solid information 3 weeks in advance that it was going to happen. I wrote about how it would happen: £1 for the equity and that the bank debt of £18m would be taken over but not cleared. I told you that it was a certainty that the Scottish media were just repeating PR lies and that Rangers were not going to be sold for £33m or £52.5m or other fanciful numbers. Either I knew or I should start gambling.

    I have also provided a lot of hard anaysis of Rangers’ publicly available data. Informed speculation? Time will tell.

    If this blog is no better than wild internet ravings, you are free to ignore it.
    Let me ask you a question. Do you take the time to write lengthy replies to every delusional Celtic fan indulging in wild speculation? What have I done to deserve your attention? ;-)

  40. Jason says:

    RTC – not everything on your website is speculation, I will concede that you do seem to have information relating to this case that seems tangible.

    When an football club is taken over by new owners, there is always a level of finance involved in the transaction.

    It does not mean that Rangers are still in debt to Wavetower. The deal was done based on the debt being cleared and it has been by all accounts. Wavetower are a company with 1 billion worth of assets, the 18m is easily absorbed into a business of that scale.

    Craig whyte deserves some time to illustrate what he wants for the club. I have no reason to doubt the man currently.
    I think the message from the fans is simple, buy new players and we will support you. I wouldn’t bet against some notable signings as a show of defiance from the new owners.

    The land around ibrox is where I see Andrew Ellis’ interest in the takeover. If whyte and Ellis make money from developing new commercial properties etc so be it. The proposals for ‘ibrox village’ were mentioned not so long ago, I would not be surprised if we see something similar soon. There are many ways for whyte and co to grow rangers as a business and he has touched briefly upon this information. Rangers turnover is well over 50m per year so to pick them up for 28m effectively is a steal!

    I would ask you to name your sources and I may take more notice. Until that point you are speculatng (hoping) Rangers go bust – may not happen. Rangers have the best tax QC in Scotland that has won similar case’ and he is confident rangers will an the case, I dont Whyte would have purchased rangers if there was even the slightest chance of being hit with a 50m bill.

    Nae doe 3 in a row :-)

    Beunos Dias

  41. Fuzzy Dunlop says:

    When it all goes pear shaped they’ll wish they had listened to the delusional Celtic supporters, who, rather bizarrely, seem to be showing more concern for Rangers well being than Rangers supporters themselves.

  42. George Dallas Peat says:


    that’s another woolly statement

    What he believes is irrelevant, What the Rangers support believe is even more irrelevant

  43. Gary says:

    How would the person who knows whats going on be irrelevant?

  44. Adam says:

    Its relevant to Number 7’s question though, hence the position of my reply.

    In summary, Lloyds are out of the picture.

  45. peter lamb says:

    adam surely securing the loan with ibrox/murray park is just what the glaziers have done at man utd
    or the other yanks at liverpool?
    its not that out of the realms of possibilities!!

  46. Adam says:

    Yeah, but the Glaziers done it after the fact Peter. Boab is talking about the here and now. It is my belief if you have read all my comments that we will end up in a Glazier type position, once Whyte has all his guys on board.

  47. Boab says:

    Yup, it is my impression that they got the finance, and bought the debt from Lloyds.

    Rangers now owe the money to Wavetower. Wavetower hold the securities against the assets.

    If that is wrong, then it is wrong, but Adam is right. That is what I currently believe to be the case. I believe it gives Wavetower, their investors, and Rangers the best security (pardon the pun) in their current position.

  48. peter lamb says:

    sorry adam but thats wrong glaizer attained loans to buy the shares of other share holders by securing them against the value of the club not a loan secured after buying the club!!
    quote from wiki- glazer ownership of man utd-
    “However, the majority of the cash used by Glazer to purchase Manchester United came in the form of loans, much of which were secured against the club’s assets”

  49. Auldheid says:

    The thing about the Glaser takeover is that the cost of watching Man Utd escalated for their support and in spite of them winning the EPL, the technical quality on show for the money has dropped but not the overall team and individual effort put in (credit to Fergie).

    Could Rangers supporters afford the kind of price hike to pay higher interest owed knowing that the extra money was not going on players?

    My feeling is that there is no risk money to be made at Rangers simply by adopting a profitable wage policy that keeps wages below income generated.

    That could mean an overal lowering of standards but in a sense Rangers (and Celtic) have been battling against that since wages rocketed in England.

    Rangers could sell McGregor, Davis, Bougherra, Jelavic and Naismith for a good return, replace them with players on higher wages than any other Scottish team bar Celtic could afford and PAY their way into solvency (tax case nothwithstanding of course).

    Of course this would never be stated up front at this point, as it might affect ticket sales BUT if you support Rangers you accept (and denial is the problem) that the tra la la salad days of debt and tax avoiding funding are over, there is a price to pay (there IS no free lunch) and after a season or two the game in Scotand reaches equilibrium as Rangers emerge from debt and have oaid their dues..

    Maybe what Rangers need right now is men who are NOT Rangers men because Rangers men only think along the same lines that got them into their present position, an unwillingness to accept Celtic as being a bigger and better club. Free of that kind of thinking CW would make prudent and profitable business decisions.

    Life in the slow lane ain’t great but it’s better than life on the hard shoulder waiting for the RAC to turn up but going no where until they do.

    The piper must be paid. – always.

  50. Fuzzy Dunlop says:

    This is why the whole Whyte thing just doesn’t make sense. On the basis that he is not a multi-millionaire, the theory that Rangers supporters would be content to finishing a poor second to Celtic every year just won’t wash. Think back to Celtic in the early 90’s. As soon as the supporters realize they are not much better than Hearts and have no chance of winning the league the crowds will plummet. By the time Celtic got to 5 in a row there would be tumbleweed blowing through a virtually empty Ibrox. Anything other than keeping up with Celtic won’t work and the only way they can do that is by plowing millions into the squad and the stadium and yet only a die-hard near billionaire Rangers fan would waste about £100m on such a project and since everyone on here believes Whyte not to be anything like a billionaire – to put it mildly – nor to many peoples minds is he a die-hard bluenose the whole thing is difficult to fathom.

  51. Gary says:


    Whyte’s response to AJ statement

  52. Paul Mac says:

    He is correct the debt to Loyds has be cleared…..and now sits in a holding company…

    Note he did not state debt free..

    A carefully worded statement that states teh obvious..the money is no longer owed to Lloyds…but to him!

  53. George Dallas Peat says:


    Is it not a concern to the Rangers support in general that Craig Whyte has to wrap his statements in such woolly language at a time when clarity is needed ?

  54. Adam says:

    It would probably help if you did a search on my name on this blog GDP and read my earlier replies on what the varying degrees of the Rangers support think.

    I think a lot of my replies are not getting read as the posts do not run in chronological order.

  55. ramsay smith says:

    With all the stuff in the press about super injunctions and privacy laws and justice being done in secret why is no one asking why this tribunal has been held in private?

    From what I can see from this list of decisions of First Tier Tribunals, they are invariably held in public, no matter how sensitive the material or embarrassing public disclosure is to those involved.


    Just how weak and corrupt is the Scottish media?

  56. Boab says:

    It is the tribunal who will decide whether it is held in private I would have thought.

    So, short of knowing why they agreed to it, it’s difficult to comment. And knowing why they agreed to it would kind of defeat the purpose.

  57. ramsay smith says:

    The press can, and south of the border, do challenge such decisions.

  58. Paul Mac says:


    Simply put you can acquire a commitment for the cash to be provided on the basis you acquire ownership of the shares..thus ownership of the club and its assets…the cash from city investors would then be released…at that point the high risk ROI would kick in with its high rate return.

    That I imagine would be a very good reason why the press have been told not to ask who invested the cash…and explain why Craig has avoided discussing where the cash came from..

  59. Boab says:

    That would be fine if it were not for the 10,000 chimp.

    Just owning the shares is not enough to secure the investment in my view. Holding security over the properties, as a secured creditor, is also important. Just in case of administration / liquidation.

    That might not normally be the case but it is here. Even if that situation only lasts for a few months.

  60. Paul Mac says:


    I was simply providing a method by which one can arrange the cash to purchase to facilitate the takeover…

    Adam was questioning how you can borrow cash against assets you don’t own.

    Acquiring the shares was the first step…for £1..the release of commited cash by city investors would be the next to pay Lloyds…with the assest being assigned to the company who purchase the debt,,

  61. Adam says:

    But that is a completely different scenario from “securing a loan using an asset” which was all i was pointing out.

    Again though, i think we are going round in circles as posts are not being read due to where they appear.

    Lloyds are gone. Wavetower may (probably) have a debt. If Rangers have to pay a penny of that back (and it is my view we will) then Whyte is a scamster and should be thoroughly ashamed of himself(dont think that will bother him)

  62. The Black Knight says:

    good point Paul Mac!

    Another point that has been bothering me is that The Whyte Knight has, as you say, purchased the shares in the club for less than a loaf.

    This “£1” has enabled Whyte to have the controlling share of the club, and we have to presume, the assets!

    Could the use of the ordinary share value (bought for a £1 but worth considerably more) and the “assets” be used to create a ‘paper wealth’ which can either offset the debt or interest investors to have their share of the assets? Are they using these funds (paper wealth) to secure interest or loans?

    It is no secret that Merchant Capital set up ‘The Turnaround Fund – (code name) Gemini’ the weeks before taking over Rangers.


    The timing of such a venture seems to play right into any theory! (all the same ‘players’ too) Just a thought!

  63. Paul Mac says:

    Dont forget…Craig paid less than a loaf of bread for the club. His risk is £1..

    Unless he clearly states it was his cash he used?

    One must really ask….what is there to hide?

  64. manila says:

    no reply box …

    Adam says:
    25/05/2011 at 9:34 am

    Im pretty sure Lloyds have received the £18m taking them out of the picture. As to the question of “Do Rangers now owe The Rangers Group plc that £18m?” I think only Whyte and his team know the answer to that at this present stage.

    I would agree with your first statement that LBG have got their 18M. Regarding the second statement, technically you may be correct as no-one will really know the details of any financial wormholes that the 18M may already have passed through. Mr. Whyte, using multiple company identities … never!

    However, let’s not allow the Delusional Loyal, further encouraged today by Tom English’s latest attempt to attempt to sit at the master’s table, to continue the misapprehension that the club is debt free. That debt exists.

    From the “Statement by the Independent Board of The Rangers Football Club plc 6 May 2011” …

    Wavetower is purchasing MHL’s 85% shareholding in the Club for £1 and the Club’s indebtedness with LBG is to be assigned to Wavetower.

    Oh aye, sorry … it’s getting waived. LOLZ

    The amount of blinkered hope in the majority of posts I read regarding the debt situation on FollowFollow is staggering. Mibbes the same could be said of numerous Celtic sites, wishing for an alternative conclusion. But there’s a little more to it than that. Take KDS for example, the level of detail and balanced discussion vis-a-vis Rangers out strips anything I have yet to read on any Rangers site. [shameless] And of course my own little board: The Sporting Wing http://thewing.proboards.com/index.cgi .. all we expect is wit and intelleckchooalizm [/shameless]

    It used to be ostriches that were castigated for burying their head in the sand. This premise may need revising, as It appears that that behavioural anomaly is actually carried out by bears.

    “Debt-free at last; debt-free at last; thank God Almighty we are debt-free at last.” … erm … eh … no, actually

  65. Adam says:

    However on the same day as your statement above, released through plus-market, Murray Group followed it up by saying :

    “Wavetower will also acquire the indebtedness of Lloyds Banking Group, the secured creditor, and is under an obligation to waive this debt in the foreseeable future, thereby strengthening the Club’s balance sheet.”

  66. Ciarans Dad says:

    Who do you think this obligation is to. If i buy a business off you, then you have no right to request that i dont have any debt in this company. Maybe as a seller and lifelong ranjurs fan (no sniggering at the back) its what you would like but its totally redundant in a business sense. I smell shyte of the Hay McKerron variety here.
    But i suppose it placates the follow followers :-)

  67. Adam says:

    Admittedly its a weird one Ciaran and i genuinely cant answer the question other than to say the announcement was made on the plus market and therefore must hold some water.

    Bearing in mind, this was a Murray Group announcement so they had nothing to gain from it.

    Its not normal though and like you, not sure how enforceable it is.

  68. ramsay smith says:

    If LBG have assigned their standard security to Wavetree then the assignation will be registered in the Land Register, which is public.

    Likewise if Rangers plc grant a fresh standard security in favour of Wavetree.

  69. Torquemada says:

    There is turmoil at Ibrox. Directors being sacked, executives being suspended, disputes in the media between Jingle Jackson giving the two sacked directors a voice in the Record, and the embarrassing Tom English abusing his position in the Scotsman to cast extremely personal aspersions on Alistair Johnston in a quite outrageous (and to this Tim, at least, thoroughly undeserved) calumny.

    In the midst of this, Craig Whyte makes a statement to allay the fears of Rangers fans as to what is happening. He has the opportunity to state, clearly and unambiguously, that Rangers, since the takeover, are now debt-free. He chooses not to. He has the opportunity to state, clearly and unambiguously, what his plans are for the club. He chooses not to. Instead, he wraps up optimistic-sounding platitude after platitude in the densest woolly verbiage that can be read in any number of ways.

    Sensible people will ask themselves why.

    When Fergus took over Celtic, he stated, clearly and unambiguously, what his plans were for the club — and proceeded to carry out every promise. Not Wee Craigy, the Motherwell/Rangers/Celtic fan, the Motherwell-born billionaire/millionaire/wealthy businessman/shyster.

    There are none so blind as those who will not see. You are right to be concerned, Adam. We on the other side of the house are right to be thrilled!

  70. Boab says:

    Has Craig Whyte made this statement through Rangers’ own media outlets again.

    I know he has put stuff on Rangers TV and on the official website. Has he done anything in the mainstream media.

  71. Gwared says:

    I agree it is absolutley essential that Whyte holds the security, but I think I read somewhere that he has 21 days to register the security. This means he can pay the debt off with the borrowed money and transfer the existing security from LBG to himself therfore becoming a prefered creditor in front of HMCR.

  72. murphio says:

    Adam why do you believe Whyte is a scamster if he simply takes his money back at some point? He is perfectly entitled to recoup his investment. Or even make a profit on it. That is business. When are Rangers fans going to wake up to the fact that the world doesnt owe them a free lunch? It may well be that Whyte is a scamster but it wont be on the basis of whether he wants his own money back. It will be if he lets the club slide into oblivion and begins to pick at the carcus.

  73. Adam says:

    Would probably have been better if you let me answer before generalising, incorrectly.

    I have no issues with any investor wanting his money back if that intention is laid clear at the beginning. Whyte has not done that. He has stated that he has invested to make the club debt free with promise of further investment in the team for the future.

    I absolutely dont mind him taking his “profit share” when applicable. I absolutely dont mind him keeping his £18 m or MORE if he sells the club in the future.

    I will have a problem if after saying the club is “debt free” that i find out we owe Rangers Group plc £18m and are paying any form of interest on it.

    Far from the picture you painted in your generalisation murphio.

  74. manila says:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation. :cry:

    LooseCannonCSC :cool:

  75. Mark says:

    Adam, I admire the defense of your club and to do so on here is refreshing even if I think you are slightly deluded. It’s good to see the other side and “discuss”.
    I apologise for any attck I may have perpetrated yesterday I was not trying to say one thing or another about your opinion you are welcome to your as you are about mine, fair do’s. Blue tinted or green tinted we all hope for the best regarding our respective clubs, and maybe a little craw eaten by the other when they get it wrong.

    I refer to my “deluded” remark, you can call my understanding of his tax case as “half baked”, “deluded”, whatever you like, so work away.

    You do state the you don’t really trust Whyte and think the clun is still in financial trouble. Good, the shock of what appears to be on it’s way will be lessened for you.

    On the other hand if it all works out and rangers are tax safe I will drop a nugget of poop into my pants if that becomes reality of you can be sure.

    You have to be having serious serious doubts about;
    1. Anything Whyte utters
    2.Wavetower/rangers trust group thingy
    3. Where the 18 million came from if anywhere
    4. What does Ellis want?

  76. Adam says:

    Im kind of lost for words here. In what way have I been “defending my club” Mark ? Any sane person reading ALL of my posts would see I am quite far removed from “defending my club”

    I have done nothing else but raise my concerns over Craig Whyte , question a number of theories in a non aggressive/defensive manner to incite debate or alternative opinions, and paint a picture that im not too optimistic about where my club will be, with or without the tax case.

    Having read a number of questions/comments directed at me, its as if people know im a Rangers fan so take the default position that im disagreeing with them yet in a number of cases, my opinion on things isnt far removed from theirs.

    Thankfully though, for every Celtic poster on here who just doesnt get me, there appears to be 2 or 3 who do.

    As for the last 4 questions and me having my doubts about all 4……….well eh……..yeah. I mean i have been saying that every day since i started posting on here, but thanks for summarising my doubts again. lol

  77. Ciarans Dad says:

    I think there is a 5th question and the one that probably gives rise to the majority on here that all is not right.
    You have a club that made good profits recently (lets forget the gorilla for the moment) has just won the league and could go on another good run in Europe, has relatively low debt and a strong fan base. So why would minty sell for a £1 plus transfer of the debt. I think this alone makes the whole thing dodgy, just doesn’t make any sense unless you know that gorilla is about to tear u a new one.

    Just my thoughts, but please dont take any of this personally, i can see your not closed of mind to Whyte and that is refreshing.

  78. Number 7 says:

    The default position of rangers fans in my work is that RFC is debt free and has been paid off by Whyte using his own money. They are now in a better position as they were- with the bank’s constraints now gone.

    They do not care about Whyte’s background and have bought into the multi milionaire line.

    The bottom line for them comes down to two words “debt free”.

  79. Adam says:

    Ciarans Dad. There are a number of things smelly about the sale. Not going to get any arguments from me there.

    Number 7, more fool them, though obviously i hope they turn out to be right…. :-)

  80. Mark says:

    you haven’t been defending your club? oooooookaaaaayyyy then

  81. Adam says:

    On what subject have i been defending them exactly ?

  82. peter lamb says:

    got to stick up for adam here!! from what i have read he has been very fair in his comments and has even given some scathing criticism of whyte ! the difference is he is obviously coming from a rangers stance where as most of us, as impartial as we try to be, are coming from an anti rangers stance!!

  83. ramsay smith says:

    In case it may have escaped anyone’s attention, a report on Paul Baxendale Walker’s recent attempt to restore his professional reputation.


  84. Mark says:

    Adam, why so defensive I am only saying you are putting a blue freindly spin on events, and that is, whether you like it or not defending your team, and there is nothing wrong with that. Despite overwhelming circumstantia evidence you are rightly trying to pick holes in it, that by its very nature is was a prosecution/defence lawyer does in court every day. Don’t take offense, jaysus

  85. Gwared says:

    Adam, I think you are doing a great job infact you remind me slightly of RTC with a hint of Blue. Like the majority of posters I suspect you just want to know the truth about your Club. I like you, have a cuddle ;-)

  86. Adam says:

    Im welling up here Gwared. Can i take this opportunity to thank my mum, my agent, my………….. ;-)

  87. Midlothian_Celt says:

    The majority of Rangers fans are currently backing Whyte because he was – and is – the only game in town.

    Minty tried to flog their club for years without success – Whyte comes along on his white charger (no pun intended!) promising to save the day.

    Footy fans are eternal optimists – even otherwise sane, rational, individuals have weak spots and a bar-scarf around one’s neck often impairs intellectual rigour!

    Jambo fans – in the main – support Romanov – not because they respect him and his bizarre ways – but because they know their club would got belly-up the day after he withdrew his support.

    We backed The Bunnet – mainly because he saved us from the ignominy of foreclosure and for his ousting of the ineffectual family dynasties that had helmed us to the brink of ruin. Fortunately, McCann did what he said he would do (albeit aided by a Support prepared to dig deep) and left with a fair-few million in his back-pocket and a rejuvinated Celtic.

    Of course the jury is out on where Whyte will take Rangers but from his recent statements he is surely storing up heaps of fan opprobrium should he turn out to shaft Rangers and asset-strip the Kinning Parkers.

    Time will tell if he’s in it for the long haul – or whether he is some dupe who is being cleverly manipulated by some svengali figure working to another agenda. If this turns out to be the case he will need more than the “Beast” to convey him around the land of his birth.

    A lot of Bears would feel much let down by this man – so what sort of person would freely volunteer to get involved on that basis? Frankly, I really just can’t imagine anyone with a modicum of sense doing so. Perhaps his “fee” for playing the role would compensate him – but at what price?

    This has a long way to run – and we still have the HMRC decision to come!

    Fun, fun, fun!


  88. Good points. We knew little about McCann and in some ways we simply got lucky that we got a man of his word.

    However, the degree of media scruitiny over Celtic’s troubles ensured that charlatans were uncovered and shamed. Rangers’ fans have been disadvantaged by a corrupt and cowardly media pack.

  89. ramsay smith says:

    There was never any doubt about McCann’s Celtic credentials. His business and professional background were also fairly transparent.

  90. Henry Clarson says:

    We may have known little about Fergus McCann but we knew that he had the support of the likes of Brian Dempsey and a host of other figures with cast-iron Celtic credentials. Furthermore, he had already convinced a majority of individual shareholders of his bona fides and his plans for the club. The fact that he had indeed been a regular traveller on supporters’ buses prior to his emigration was also widely confirmed. And he transparently cleared the club’s debt to the Bank of Scotland with real money at a single stroke.
    I don’t really think that it was a stroke of luck that his credibility hadn’t been blown while he went through the process of taking Celtic over. If he’d been a fake, he’d have been rumbled many times over.
    The Craig Whyte scenario is at the opposite end of the spectrum in every one of the aspects I’ve mentioned above. He has risen without trace, has no interests in clarifying his objectives, has no known history of being a committed Rangers supporters and there are no major Rangers figures backing him up. On the contrary, he is generally regarded with suspicion by any leading Rangers figures from whom a quote can be dragged while the rest of them assiduously avoid committing themselves to an opinion.

  91. Mark Dickson says:

    Back in the day Davy Duff and his brother in law Jimmy Gray were both dyed in the wool Hibby’s who no doubt wanted the best for their team plus the ego trip, perks and exposure of running a fitba club, they too also had little real wealth of their own and had roped in David Rowlands as their rich investor and funder …… he was working to a very different agenda concerning assets, debts, financing etc than they were.

  92. A general question:

    The replies section of this blog has grown to a point where it is straining the design / layout. (Most blogs are lucky to get a single reply and the tools do not anticipate detailed debates involving many people).

    What would you all prefer?
    A messageboard format e.g. vBulletin
    A linear reply system e.g. in the format of CQN

    Anyone else got suggestions or recommendations of blogs, tools, layouts that would be an improvement?

    If we went to a registered account format, would you take the time to register and sign up?

  93. Ian58 says:

    I’d vote for the CQN format.
    It works reasonably well there despite the many topics that can be on the go any any one time.

    Given the nature of how things are here with usually just a few different themes on the go I think it would work well.

  94. Ciarans Dad says:

    I like the CQN style as you can quote an earlier post and if you do so the current online users see it and get achance to comment. Also this alows everyone online to get involved rather than isolated in a particular thread.

    Yip would be willing to register and it may make things easier for you as you can just bin anyone that abuses and also may stop my posts going to moderation.:-p

  95. Boab says:

    I do not like the CQN format. To me it is too much like online chat and I cannot work out who is replying to whom, and often what point they are trying to make.

    I much prefer the message board type model. A thread with a topic and people replying to that topic. One can use the reply function to answer a particular point. Or just add on at the end of a thread to make a general point.

    It doesn’t work particularly well on blogs, but they are not really designed for that anyway. A weblog is really more for someone’s thoughts and other people commenting on those. It is not really for a few (or more) people having several discussions, inspired by the bloggers opening thoughts.

  96. Badlydrawnbhoys says:


    A CQN style format would certainly help the flow of the thread as it can be quite difficult to catch replies to posts if they are further up the chain at the moment. The only downside to CQN I have found is the multipage posts which I know were done to cope with the number of posts but you do sometimes blink and you miss a whole section of the thread (unless you want to trawl back through each page).

    No probs signing up either…….

    Well done on a great blog so far….


  97. kenny says:

    vBulletin for this bare although I will prolly get barred like I did from thehuddleboard

  98. tomtom says:

    This blog has taught me to sign nothing until due diligence is carried out. 48 hrs after that will be the deadline for any signing to take place unless my board (wife) advises me against it. After that time I reserve the right to assign my comments to TomTom2 who will give an undertaking to present posts in the manner accustomed for the foreseeable future. Other than that I cannot comment on any internal arrangements that may arise as a result of this or any other change in circumstances.

  99. Odear says:

    Linear please. The volume of posts means that if you revisit regularly on a mobile (as I do and I guess a fair amount of others do) it is murder to scroll looking for new points as people can reply anywhere on the page. Would be appreciated by my poor thumb!

    I’d take time to register, especially if registering would get me the skinny on whatever you resurrect the blog to address other issues. Seriously it is a good read and if you could widen the focus, i.e. the skinny on say Romanov, get a reputation as the football Wikileaks and uncover what the hell is going on at Leeds.

  100. murphio says:

    Adam I was simply responding to your quote which said the following; “Wavetower may (probably) have a debt. If Rangers have to pay a penny of that back (and it is my view we will) then Whyte is a scamster and should be thoroughly ashamed of himself(dont think that will bother him”
    That statement is fairly clear. If you honestly believed that Whyte – with no verifiable wealth and a string of failed businesses – was going to pour money into Rangers for no return I have to say at the very least you were niave in the extreme. Whyte actually didn’t say he would make Rangers debt free – that was the work of fantisists in the media like Traynor and King who still continue to state that Rangers debt has been liquidated despite it being made clear in black and white that the obliation has simply been transferred from Lloyds to Wavetower.

    Whyte may be a scamster – in fact all the evidence points to him being exactly that. But he is perfectly entitled to demand repayment of the money he has promised to pay Lloyds and would have nothing whatsoever to feel ashamed about. That is money Rangers used to buy players like Lafferty, Davis and Naismith and if and when the time comes when you have to pay it back then tough luck amigo – that’s how borrowing works.

  101. Badlydrawnbhoys says:


    A CQN style format would certainly help the flow of the thread as it can be quite difficult to catch replies to posts if they are further up the chain at the moment. The only downside to CQN I have found is the multipage posts which I know were done to cope with the number of posts but you do sometimes blink and you miss a whole section of the thread (unless you want to trawl back through each page).

    No probs signing up either…….

    Well done on a great blog so far….


  102. Charlie says:


    The only criticism I would have of this site is the out-of-synch posts time-wise. As a sad case who wants to read every post I find this time-consuming.

    The CQN format would be fine as long as you continue to comment on posts, which are the main life blood of the site after you blogs. It would mean you don’t have to comment on posts as soon as they appear, but just refer to poster and time and we can look back if we want to.

    In any case, just keep it going.

    After this how about a Coalition Government blog!!

  103. easyJambo says:

    Excellent blog as always RTC

    I’d like to defend Adam’s position at the moment. My interpretation of what he has posted is that he has concerns about Whyte and his plans, but bases his position on what information in in the public domain rather than indulge in speculation at this stage.

    On the other hand we have RTC who has used his knowledge and experience to speculate on possible outcomes, particularly on the tax case. I think this position is shared by the moajority of posters.

    Beyond that, we have a number of “Celtic-minded” posters who are already bought into the worst case scenario for Rangers and are already gloating over their demise and the prospect of 10 in a row.

    As a Jambo, I consider myself to be neutral, although I guess some “Celtic-minded” posters may doubt that.

    For the record I am aligned closer to RTC’s line of thinking, but I am hopeful that that Rangers are forced out of business, not because they are Rangers, but as an example to the rest of the football world about the excesses of financial doping ( …… and I include my own team in that list)

  104. Henry Clarson says:

    25/05/2011 at 10:27 am
    Its all in the timing i guess. Statement just released by Craig Whyte:

    I believe most Rangers supporters understand that, as a result of the takeover, the Club’s debt to the Lloyds Banking Group has been cleared and I have repeatedly stated to the Board my intentions to invest in the team”

    First thing to say, Adam, is that I’ve been reading this blog from the first and I regard your contributions as valid, worthwhile and honourable, so I have no issues there.

    As far as this quote is concerned, it strikes me as a sneaky way of giving an impression that it means one thing while it actually says something else.
    Whyte is giving the impression that not only has the debt been cleared but that he is going to invest in the team. That may turn out to be true but it’s not what he’s saying.
    What he is actually saying is that he believes that this is what most Rangers supporters currently understand.
    That’s not the same thing.
    It may well be true that he believes this is what Rangers fans understand.
    It’s not necessarily true that their understanding reflects reality.

    Everything that this man actually utters strikes me as being carefully calculated to be as unclear as possible so that he will have plenty of wriggle room if his quotes are subsequently thrown back at him.
    It would have been far easier to say, “I have cleared the debt and I will invest millions in the team,” but only if that is the truth of the matter. If it’s not the truth, then it’s perfectly clear why he would qualify the statement with, “I believe that this is the understanding of people who are trying to draw an optimistic conclusion from the vague impressions that I have carefully planted in their minds.” Or words to that effect.

    It’s really not a far cry from President Clinton’s desperate statement that, “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.” That was never the question, Bill, and the only reason for avoiding the correct, simple answer is because the truth would be so damaging.
    Similarly, Whyte’s words are worth scrutinising. This is a man who appears to have made whatever wealth he has acquired by constructing corporate webs of Byantine complexity, relentlessly grinding away at infinitesimal details and delving into obscure loopholes which very few people would dream of pursuing. He knows exactly how valuable words can be and he knows that using this one instead of that one can make a difference worth millions of pounds.

  105. I’m extremely not too acquainted with this matter but I do prefer to go to blogs for layout suggestions and fascinating topics. You basically described a subject matter that I quite often really do not care a great deal about and produced it highly fascinating. This is a wonderful blog that I’ll be aware of. I by now bookmarked it for future reference. Lung Cancer Symptoms

  106. Ray Charles says:

    I posted this last month when the Bain suspension was announced.

    It is from a Traynor piece in the Record.

    I assume the opinions posited in the article came directly from Bain although it could have been Johnston or Paul Murray.

    Referring to the rebel board members, Traynor stated: “They are still wondering how much money for the day-to-day running of the club the new man has in place.

    “They were asking where Wyhte’s cash might be lying and if it is the intention to use season-ticket cash, which they would have ring-fenced to deal with any tax liability should Rangers lose their HMRC battle, for that purpose.”

    I thought it was interesting at the time, as did RTC, and I find it even more intriguing now given the latest developments.

    It appears the old board had some sort of plan to deal with the tax case that involved “ring-fencing” season ticket cash.

    The plan may have been to offer HMRC a set amount over four years secured against season ticket sales or maybe to borrow the money from ticketus secured against future season ticket sales and pay HMRC off.

    The fans would then be told the very future of the club is at stake and a share issue would be launched to ensure the club can get back on its feet.

    Perhaps the same plan for dealing with HMRC is being acted out here.

    It seems a reasonable way of dealing with a dire situation while ensuring the survival of the club.

    I could see it being the only plan open to the old board under Alastair Johnston.

    I think they might have pulled it off too. Most Rangers fans would have trusted Johnston. He wouldn’t have been seen to be acting for personal gain.

    A deal with HMRC using “ring fenced” season ticket sales coupled with a successful share issue could get Rangers back on track.

    If the plan is the same under Craig Whyte, could he pull it off?

    Maybe he could and maybe that’s the plan.

    I still think another scenario is unfolding though.

    A while ago I asked someone who was close to members of the old board about Rangers borrowing from ticketus to buy Jelavic.

    I was told it wasn’t true.

    However, they made it clear that if Whyte took over he would use future season ticket revenue to raise money from ticketus.

    The old board certainly didn’t think the money raised by Whyte in this way would be used to pay the tax bill!

    Sorry for the long post. Hope it makes some sense.

  107. Ray Charles says:

    Oops, wrong thread.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 23,474 other followers

%d bloggers like this: